But what was complicating matters was the international bolshevik movement which was the reaction to nationalism and its effect on Zionist philosophy. By the time the Nazis took power Jews and Jewish newspapers had already "declared war" on the government.

I'm sure you have a source for that assertion other than Mein Kampf or Der Stuermer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSunGod

When Americans saw the behavior of the Nazi government, they likened the Japanese government to it and interned all Japanese nationals.

Nobody on this forum has more passionately argued against both the legality and morality of the Roosevelt administration detaining ethnic Japanese in WWII. But comparing detainment with systematic murder is at best disingenuous and at worst something much uglier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSunGod

Could it have been that this was simply an attempt to save resources, resources that were thin and had been stretched in WWI? In fact because of the lack of resources and the subsequent British blockade of Germany millions of Germans died of starvation. It seems rational and logical to attempt to prevent this by limiting POW's and limiting factors that drained resources. They call it Stunde Null for a reason: Germany as it had been for centuries lost its continuinty. An all-out war is logical in a total war like WWII, the morality of the acts of war themselves aside. Which is exactly my point: you cannot call one evil in war because violence is the natural state of war and there is no way to justify destruction. It just occurs in that state, leaving a void and no explanation. The only justification is taking one side over the other, which is subjective and cannot be morally superior.

Morality aside, one could just as convincingly argue that the cost of implementing the Endloesung far exceeded the cost of feeding human beings. Perhaps you have some sources to justify your assertion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSunGod

@Fiver- Read my response above and consider it from the German perspective. Was there truly no military objective in limiting POW's, decreasing resource strain, and depopulating the war zone and thus limiting the occurences of guerilla movements?

Military objectives aside, there are rules of warfare. The Hague convention-to which Germany was a signatory-prohibits mistreatment of civilians. Moreover, given that Germany did NOT for the most part mistreat western POWs and civilians, there is implicit in German behavior an understanding that it was wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSunGod

I wonder if anyone else would not see the logic in internment camps(which are inevitable in the modern age, and in all future wars will be a great source of death), but fail to miss the irony of allowing Dresden to go untouched as a necessity of war. Davidus has exemplified my point: what appears evil to one side appears to be a necessity of war for the other. I actually think bombing civilians is much more heinous than killing them in internment camps... it is far more barbaric to kill someone with a bomb than with bare hands. Yet, still there is a void here and no objective morality. Only one side against the other.

Red herring. Bombing enemy cities, while arguably immoral, at least has military objectives in mind (the elimination of the enemy's infrastructure and capability of making war). Forcibly detaining a group of people for mass extermination solely because of their ethnicity is something else entirely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSunGod

One should argue that he who declared war had the intent against the other. Germany against Poland, and Britain and France against Germany. Not an evil intent, but one to destroy, which as I've shown as my position is subjective and not morally superior. And then again, we can only assume that the Allies simply detested Germany and the Germans simply wanted back East Prussia because those are the only objective facts about the beginnings of the war.

Just plain wrong. If you would take the time to read Mein Kampf, you would know that Hitler told the world that he planned on attacking not only Poland, but ALL the slavic states and displace those unfortunate persons and replace them with ethnic Germans. Moreover Hitler told his generals that the successful campaign in France had "finally freed his hands for his important real task: the showdown with Bolshevism...." Clearly, East Prussia was not Hitler's only objective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSunGod

Finally, once again, the acts of war themselves are subjective and as I have shown there were military objectives in the internment camps and in killings. Such is the (unfortunate) nature of modern warfare in fact, I argue.

All you have shown is a questionable understanding of history at best and an unsavory agenda at worst.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSunGod

Whether we would have killed those Japanese nationals if the Japs were on our doorstep is not out of the question if we thought that they would be willing to aid the enemy war effort.

Finally, as a moderator, I must warn you that the use of the term "Japs" is both demeaning and offensive. Do not use that term again.

"Postwar analysis placed the overall accuracy of daylight precision attacks with the Norden at about the same level as radar bombing efforts. The 8th Air Force put 31.8 percent of its bombs within 1,000 feet from an average altitude of 21,000 feet, the 15th Air Force averaged 30.78 percent from 20,500 feet, and the 20th Air Force against Japan averaged 31 percent 16,500 feet."

I happen to like the term "Jap" because its catchy. If it has a negative perception for you that is your deal, I consider the Japanese an ally of the West.

In typical modern middle eastern battlefields civilians run next door, but this was not viable in 20th century Europe, which means that in the scenario civilians are entrapped in a field of battle they have to be dealt with in some way, shape or form. It is more than likely going to happen again on a similar scale with the advancement of weaponry. If they're not dealt with, they are the enemies' to use. German Nationalists couldn't use zionists and capitalists... by their very natures they were opposed. There's nothing inherently wrong with National Socialism and it naturally opposes those things. Modern civilians in the middle of the battlefield inevitably become POW's. You can't just fight a war around them. They either join or oppose.

Dresden was atrocious because it was done to dehouse Germans and demoralize the civilian population. Yet, it had a military objective. If "terror bombing simply for the sake of increasing terror"(Churchill) can have a military objective, so can the killing of POW's.

Once again, I can't justify the killings. Killing outside of war is not justified, and we are not in a state of war on this forum. I'm just saying that it will happen again in modern warfare and the holocaust will only be but one example. Even without especially ill intent, the need to put prisoners in ghettos will remain. Modern warfare should result in higher casualties regardless of especially ill intent, and with even a slight bit more of ill intent the casualties should skyrocket. The result is that a regular military objective now yields unimaginable death.

Is there a military objective in killing POW's? Why wouldn't there be?

Good God can you imagine an occupying power simply cutting off medications to the infirm of the modern day? Bam! 20 million dead in two years. Genocide? Yeah right!

Prisoners are going to riot and take over the prison, killing the prisoners to have a more defensable position? Bam, genocide.

Both military objectives, both "heinous", both likely to benefit from the subjects viewpoint.

That was not my premise. And I have no idea whay you mean by "depends on the national socialism". There is one national socialsm, which is more properly called "nazism" (the word national socialism is most often used by apologists).